2012 Hyundai Veracruz Gls Sport Utility 4-door 3.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.

Are we closer to a production version of the Genesis X Convertible?

Searching the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database for the alphanumeric "GT90" returns 21 results. All but four results are dead. Three of those four trademark requests come from Hyundai, one of them filed this month. As CarBuzz noted, on April 4, Hyundai asked to reserve the character logo for "GT90 Genesis" for two categories: Automobiles and sports cars. As usual, a trademark application doesn't mean we'll see the trademark used anywhere. The Korean automaker's been toying with this idea for years, though. In 2017, it requested to reserve the name "Genesis GT90," in 2020 it applied to protect the same GT90 Genesis logo in several categories that did not include sports cars. The suspicion is that the GT name will could be for a grand tourer based on one of the Speedium concepts revealed in the last few years. The GT90 Genesis filing comes about two months after Hyundai supposedly told U.S. dealers the Genesis X Convertible concept will enter production. Descriptions from the chairman of Genesis' national dealer advisory council laid out a flagship product to launch the brand into another uncharted reach, attempting to take Genesis in the same direction the Celestiq is attempting to take Cadillac. Peter Lanzavecchia told Automotive News about the possible production car, "I don't know if it's going to be over $200,000 or $300,000, but I guarantee we're going see a lot of Bentley Continental convertible trade-ins on that when it comes to our showrooms." Other luxury news and rumor in the background at Genesis have the head of product planning telling Autocar, "We do talk about developing ‘effortlessÂ’ [electric] powertrains — enough power to be enjoyable in all circumstances, and which satisfies the luxury experience," and a report that there's work on a One of One personalization division. Both tidbits would fit with the arrival of a top-shelf electric GT. And if one, why not more? CarBuzz found more applications for GT60, GT70, and GT80 filed in Cuba. Genesis has said it won't abandon the sedan segment, and it wants more coupes and convertibles. Many automakers have said EVs open up the business cases for those two-doors and droptops that have become even more niche in the past decade. For Genesis, a three-pronged approach of G sedans, GV crossovers, and GT coupes and convertibles could be the result.   Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.